A fresh cause of action can arise from default in payment of rent and failure to hand over possession, justifying the filing of a new suit. Additionally, a co-owner/co-sharer can file a suit for possession.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. APPL. 6977/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 42/2023 & C.M. APPL. 6976/2023 (stay)

3. This revision petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 14.12.2022, passed by the Trial Court, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners herein under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed holding that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. Petitioners are Defendants before the Trial Court and Respondent is the Plaintiff and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. Plaintiff, claiming herself to be an absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of lease rent and mesne profits/damages against the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 is a Company while Defendant No. 2 is the Director of the said Company. Desirous of taking the suit property on lease, Defendant No. 2 approached Plaintiff's late husband, in February, 2017 and inspected the suit property for residential purpose. A Lease Agreement was executed on 04.03.2017 and was signed by the parties on mutually agreed terms and conditions. The term of the lease was 5 years commencing from 01.04.2017 and pursuant to the Lease Agreement, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property was handed over to the Defendants on 06.03.2017. On account of certain disputes arising out of non-payment of the rent, Plaintiff's deceased husband terminated the Lease Agreement vide notice dated 16.04.2018 and also filed a civil suit being CS No. 527/2018, for recovery of possession etc.

5. The parties mutually resolved their disputes during the pendency of the suit and the suit was decreed on 30.10.2018. As per the settlement terms, possession of the suit property was to be handed over by the Defendants by 31.10.2019, subject to further consideration to extend the lease for one year. Accordingly, an Addendum was executed on 31.12.2019, according to which Defendants were liable to pay Rs.4,25,000/- per month initially for six months commencing from 01.10.2019 and thereafter increased rent at the rate of 15 % per month exclusive of electricity, water charges etc. Defendants issued 14 post-dated cheques instead of 15 securing the rent upto 31.03.2021.

6. According to the case set up by the Plaintiff, Defendants started defaulting in payment of the rent and the cheques were also dishonoured leading to the deceased husband of the Plaintiff filing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. During his lifetime, Plaintiff's husband had terminated the Addendum by a legal notice dated 06.04.2021 and had called upon the Defendants to handover vacant possession of the property and clear the arrears of rent. Having no other option, Plaintiff who is a 80 year old widow filed the present suit.

7. Defendants filed a written statement in December, 2021, followed by an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds. Reply was filed by the Plaintiff. By the impugned order, Trial Court has dismissed the application of the Defendants holding that the plaint discloses a cause of action and cannot be rejected at the threshold.

8. The only ground urged by the Defendants for rejection of the plaint before the Trial Court, as reflected from the impugned order and argued even before this Court is that the deceased husband of the Plaintiff had earlier filed a Civil Suit against the Defendants for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages, etc. and after the matter was amicably resolved and a decree was passed in terms of the settlement, the only course of action open to the Plaintiff was to file execution of the decree and not a fresh suit, even if aggrieved by any action of the Defendants. Hence, according to the Defendants, the present suit did not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected.

9.